The apex validation of human-fatal contradiction in leadership technology

Re. The Big Mindedness of Holding Paradox (my title) Gayle Karen Young’s original title was Apex Perspectives: Leadership Applications of Big Mind

The world needs more conscious leaders. That’s just such a no-brainer to me, so every possible practice I encounter to help develop that becomes seed for thought about how it can be used. The question then arises about how you develop …the ability to hold paradox. On the one hand, there’s the lived experience, where the lived experience of the world is so undeniably, fundamentally one in which one moves constantly through the paradoxes we face that one is forced to hold it, or else go insane or into denial.

Existence is not paradoxical. It is unity. The abominal mental slavery of humanity as machine-mind bristles with paradox = read, mendacity and delusion. To hold paradox is apex validation of the lie that machine is human and denial that the human mind is down on the plate no matter how our legs are kicking and we are up for lunch. Also, note the primary paradox we have been ultimately seduced to hold: that we are simultaneously everything and anything, so as to be able to shift into any rationalization, in satisfying the demand of assimilating the self as optimized universe.

re. previous quote.

From a leadership development perspective, this isn’t exactly a credible or viable thing to relate to executives grappling with the realities they’re facing in this increasingly complex, turbulent, ambiguous, fearful marketplace. What are the practices that offer perspective taking? Big Mind, amongst others, certainly does—and it does so in a very unique way.

This quote shows glaring denial about the parasitic to predatory nature of the acceleration of natural selection in terms of memetic code, in the way it demands that we develop as optimal productivity machines, instead of fundamentally dismantling and restructuring a rising dystopian technological singularity. The natural selection of memetic code, or the competitive proliferation of ideas, is the genetic structure of the evolution of the machine.

Note:

The inherent paradoxical fertility of meaning making in civilized development is that it divides and conquers. A point conveniently ignored is that in the early civilized developmental stages, children are indeed implored to develop an intricate self as object.

When Einstein says that the problems of this world can’t be solved at the same level of consciousness that created them, I believe that an implication of his words means that issues can’t be solved from the place of polarity and paradox but from the place of increasing the tension, making cleaner the distinctions, in order to then include and transcend them.

So, this is how shallow the mendacity is. We cannot see the mechanically binary nature of the exercise. To transcend perspective holding, we 1) sharply accentuate two or just a few perspectives, usually in the thesis-antithesis-synthesis form. 2) test it in the world 3) modulate errors. We do not realize that we have lived and thought the emergence of an artificial virtual symbolic world in which paradox is prime, and the emergence of a world of increasing turbulence and accelerating change is the underlying dynamic. Hence the demand that leadership conciousness be so BIG on holding so-called “paradox.”

And in conclusion, a homy quote to illustrate the delusion of the happy Zen vibration, the general nature of the civilized human condition as mind-pleasuring into unconsciousness, …. known as “consciousness.”

He (The Zen master) holds the space of the voices themselves, creating a subtle resonance that we key into on an intuitive level, while also holding the space of all voices at once from the space of the truly Big Mind with grace and compassion. He mindfully moves with flow and adapts precisely to where everyone is in a roomful of people. I guess they don’t call someone a Zen Master for just any old reason.

Done, 2010:07:28 11:55 US central time.

We Are the Followers

Humans do want to follow. Stage development is natural.* However, the kind of stage development that civilized minds are engaged in is very unnatural, dishonest and delusional, for being geared to follow the evolution of technology of all kinds. Overlapping examples of technology: memetic-cognitive (ideology, dialectics, rewiring of our brains), symbolic (beauty, love, freedom, liberty, integrity, responsibility, guilt, crime, punishment) methodological (religious and social ritual, the scientific method), material (the dynamic allure of houses, cars, computers, internet, travel, gadgetry) and globally systemic (trade, civilization, internet, infrastructure).

*Stage development and leadership: we tend to want to follow the emotional interactive lead of our mother, then that of other caretakers, then that of the attitude of our same-level peers and that of immediately more mature peers at the next stage up from where we are, institutions, our own philosophy, the whole dynamic of philosophies, and the universe as unity. We trust it, no matter if it is bio-nature based or machine.

All civilized minds, from the basic civilization of hunter-gatherers to cutting-edge supernerd societies have the same basically wrong story-telling shaman structure. It is this structure we must study, to know how it can be restructured. The wrong structure is shaman meaning making – essentially a continuous life-long seduction of the human mind in terms of artificial development through technological stages. In the early societies from around 80,000 years ago, or as soon as humans developed language fluency, shaman stories have conveyed a belief in a host of potent spirits in nature, setting the tone for a vast mystical mythology, both religious and secular.

I think this wrong developmental structure is seated in symbolic language and speech. It is in the sound, cadence, structure and semiotics of language. The delusional use of logic is subject to speech. So, linguistics to me is the most important study, and then the study of individual development as a visceral recapitulation in each individual of the development of civilization. Finding out how language and civilized development are wrong will go a long way towards ensuring the survival of the human animal species.

Übermensch, Archetype Myth and Superswarming

I made the following statement:

I understand my “opinion” is unpopular for not being a superswarm. The superiority of numbers is what Nietzsche intuitively sensed when he coined the term “Übermensch.”

Paul Stevenson then proudly commented that he knows that Nietzsche’s word Über(mensch) translates as Over and not Super.

  1. Several points come to mind.
  2. My use of “super” in reference to “Über” is naturally indirect, because of the lack of one-to-one reference, but more importantly, since I am talking about a superpotent overarching / surreptitious underlying determination I categorize as superswarming.
  3. The word Über has no direct translation in English, due to linguistic, temporal and personal context, and the word Mensch really has no translation at all, a combination of human and humanity and the singular of people* being the closest, and man being traditional.
  4. Nietzsche saying that “man” is something that should be overcome, is due to stereotyping. Nietzsche’s scorn of humanity is a case of mistaken identity, because mythic archetype is not human. It is shaman myth.
  5. Nevertheless, Nietzsche’s intention is secondary to my observation. I am referring here to the determination of Nietzsche’s meaning by the human innate underlying cosmic pattern or what Carl Jung coined “collective unconscious,” as being subject to a kind of dispersed dynamic-fractal superswarming. Not as mythological archetype, which is an erroneous interpretation of Jung’s book, The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious .
  6. My point is that Nietzsche is already subconsciously gravitating to a post-heroic mythology of humans simultaneously assimilated as the emerging technological-cosmic singularity and as the infinitude of its smallest granularity nothingness.
  7. Here also important that Wittgenstein said that language meaning is seated in the function of words: and the function of meaning in our time is pervasively cultural-collective.
  8. Representativeness heuristics being common to all communicating organisms does not mean that civilization’s archetype mythology is human innate. It is an indication that human shortsightedness is so wide open to systemic manipulation, the process is consuming us.
  9. Nietzche, Jung and social contract civil interpretation dismally overplay actual human operational agency in the civil process and underplay self-organizational cosmic forces like memetic superswarming.
  10. NOTE: even deeper than the analogy of superswarming is the analogy of the universe as dynamic three-dimensional standing wave structure.
  11. If social contract shamanism has indeed taken over and dominates all world language, then archetypal characteristics in all peoples worldwide, irrespective of language spoken is not an indication that mythological archetype is congenital and should be included in Jung’s human collective unconscious
  12. Today the social contract shamanism-generated body of mythology has shifted from a very recently well-defined hierarchical construct to a construct of accelerating differentiation, in unconscious reflection and anticipation of the utter disintegration of the human holon.
  13. There is fatal confusion in the perception of what is human, and the confusion of overcoming humanness now actually widely expressed as transhumanism, and the dismal attitude that “human,” whatever meaning it takes moment-to-moment, can become ever bigger and better, and that we can be super in a superswarm, and blissfully posthuman.

* people as singular, as in he is good people.